The chants of our various traditions that are unique to the Presanctified Liturgy are among the most moving and beautiful. Here is a link to a video from the Carpatho-Rusyn heritage on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/dmd53?feature=mhw4#p/u/65/BoZK3D-3FAY Perhaps others can share some video from their tradition as we enter the Holy Week.

I have never served a Presanctified in the evening. It just was never done when I was young and it still feels 'wrong' somehow.

And yet it's a Vespers service. To my mind, there's just something wrong with reading Vespers at 9:00 in the morning.

What about a (Bridegroom) Matins at 7:00 in the evening?

That's actually somewhat more consistent with the Slavic practice that I know: read Matins at night and call it a vigil.

The other problem I have with a morning Presanctified Liturgy is that it doesn't do much to reinforce the Church's call that we fast during Lent. Sure, Lent still encourages one to fast even after having received Communion, but with an evening Presanctified Liturgy, preparation to receive the Holy Presanctified Mysteries gives us an added reason to fast throughout the day.

I have never served a Presanctified in the evening. It just was never done when I was young and it still feels 'wrong' somehow.

And yet it's a Vespers service. To my mind, there's just something wrong with reading Vespers at 9:00 in the morning.

Right throughout the Great Fast Vespers is served in the mornings on all weekdays.

Those who have begun recently (in America) to serve Lenten Vespers in the evenings are overturning hundreds of years of liturgical tradition. Don't ask me how many hundreds since this is one of those Orthodox "mysteries." Scholars have still not determined in what century the order of services was stood upside down during the Great Fast.

It is Great Compline which becomes the evening Service for Great Lent.

I have never served a Presanctified in the evening. It just was never done when I was young and it still feels 'wrong' somehow.

And yet it's a Vespers service. To my mind, there's just something wrong with reading Vespers at 9:00 in the morning.

Right throughout the Great Fast Vespers is served in the mornings on all weekdays.

Those who have begun recently (in America) to serve Lenten Vespers in the evenings are overturning hundreds of years of liturgical tradition.

But how does "hundreds of years" of liturgical tradition justify reading an evening service to the morning and then calling the desire to move it back to the evening an "innovation"? Like a few other things I've seen you defend here, hundreds of years of practice does not justify an abuse. (Not that I think a morning Presanctified Liturgy a liturgical abuse, even if I do think it a bit odd... Just criticizing your logic that hundreds of years of traditional practice justifies anything, even if it is an abuse...)

I have never served a Presanctified in the evening. It just was never done when I was young and it still feels 'wrong' somehow.

And yet it's a Vespers service. To my mind, there's just something wrong with reading Vespers at 9:00 in the morning.

Right throughout the Great Fast Vespers is served in the mornings on all weekdays.

Those who have begun recently (in America) to serve Lenten Vespers in the evenings are overturning hundreds of years of liturgical tradition.

But how does "hundreds of years" of liturgical tradition justify reading an evening service to the morning and then calling the desire to move it back to the evening an "innovation"? Like a few other things I've seen you defend here, hundreds of years of practice does not justify an abuse. (Not that I think a morning Presanctified Liturgy a liturgical abuse, even if I do think it a bit odd... Just criticizing your logic that hundreds of years of traditional practice justifies anything, even if it is an abuse...)

Don't ask me how many hundreds since this is one of those Orthodox "mysteries." Scholars have still not determined in what century the order of services was stood upside down during the Great Fast.

So you admit that the original practice was to serve the Presanctified Liturgy in the evening. Why justify the innovation of moving it to the morning?

Was not the Presanctified Liturgy in the evening something fostered by Fr Alexander Schmemann? They were unheard of in the Orthodox Church. Gradually other American Churches began to adopt this new way of doing things. As we see from this thread, a Presanctificed Liturgy has now been served in the evening in Russia. It may be an experiment to see how it is received by the faithful?

I was educated in Orthodoxy in the wilds of Serbia (holy Zica to be more precise) and no Liturgy could possibly commence after noon. Therefore all monasteries and parishes serving the Presanctified had to serve it in the morning, as was right since during the Fast on weekdays Vespers takes place in the mornings anyway.

I think we were vaguely aware that people such as the Antiochians in America were serving evening Presanctifieds but we saw that as a bit of a liturgical aberration.

There is the fact that in order to start up with evening Presanctifieds the clergy writing on the ROCA clergy list feel the necessity to get a blessing from their bishop. They know it is a break with liturgical tradition. They also had to seek guidance about how to manage the pre-communuion fast - another indication that it was an innovation which lacked earlier guidelines.

I can recall elderly Greeks telling me many years ago that, in their home villages, the Presanctified Liturgy was an evening service, yet in the larger cities and towns, to their discomfort, it had been shifted to the morning. I doubt it that these village priests or parishioners had heard of Fr Alexander Schmemann.

I can recall elderly Greeks telling me many years ago that, in their home villages, the Presanctified Liturgy was an evening service, yet in the larger cities and towns, to their discomfort, it had been shifted to the morning. I doubt it that these village priests or parishioners had heard of Fr Alexander Schmemann.

How did these elderly Greeks cope with the discomfort of morning Liturgies for the 316 other days of the year, outside the period of the Great Fast?

I can recall elderly Greeks telling me many years ago that, in their home villages, the Presanctified Liturgy was an evening service, yet in the larger cities and towns, to their discomfort, it had been shifted to the morning. I doubt it that these village priests or parishioners had heard of Fr Alexander Schmemann.

.....Like a few other things I've seen you defend here, hundreds of years of practice does not justify an abuse.

......Just criticizing your logic that hundreds of years of traditional practice justifies anything, even if it is an abuse

Let me be absolutely clear in saying that I have never said that an abuse may be justified because it can point to hundreds of years of practice. An abuse is just that... an abuse, and it ought to be righted and not defended.

.....Like a few other things I've seen you defend here, hundreds of years of practice does not justify an abuse.

......Just criticizing your logic that hundreds of years of traditional practice justifies anything, even if it is an abuse

Let me be absolutely clear in saying that I have never said that an abuse may be justified because it can point to hundreds of years of practice. An abuse is just that... an abuse, and it ought to be righted and not defended.

I can recall elderly Greeks telling me many years ago that, in their home villages, the Presanctified Liturgy was an evening service, yet in the larger cities and towns, to their discomfort, it had been shifted to the morning. I doubt it that these village priests or parishioners had heard of Fr Alexander Schmemann.

How did these elderly Greeks cope with the discomfort of morning Liturgies for the 316 other days of the year, outside the period of the Great Fast?

Is a Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts somehow the same thing as the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?

I can recall elderly Greeks telling me many years ago that, in their home villages, the Presanctified Liturgy was an evening service, yet in the larger cities and towns, to their discomfort, it had been shifted to the morning. I doubt it that these village priests or parishioners had heard of Fr Alexander Schmemann.

Neither have our priests, thank God.

I am not familiar with him or his writings. May I ask why some people have such a negative view of him? Was he some sort of liturgical revisionist?

But I would also recommend that one not just take one side of this debate as gospel truth without first reading a defense from the other side.

I believe that someone did make a response to Pomazansky's critique. I imagine that members of the OCA could point us in its direction.

I'd rather not, since it seems to me you're merely attaching the move toward evening Presanctified Liturgies to Fr. Schmemann in an attempt to discredit the idea. I'd rather discuss the move on its own liturgical merits, just as LBK tried to do, without making reference to Fr. Schmemann.

But I would also recommend that one not just take one side of this debate as gospel truth without first reading a defense from the other side.

I believe that someone did make a response to Pomazansky's critique. I imagine that members of the OCA could point us in its direction.

I'd rather not, since it seems to me you're merely attaching the move toward evening Presanctified Liturgies to Fr. Schmemann in an attempt to discredit the idea.

I assure you that you have entirely misunderstood my intention. You recommended that people should read more positive critiques of Schmemann than Pomazansky (which I supplied specifically in answer Alveus' question) and I simply, in fairness and balance, brought it to the attention of those reading this thread that I believe such a response to Pomazansky exists.

I'd rather not, since it seems to me you're merely attaching the move toward evening Presanctified Liturgies to Fr. Schmemann in an attempt to discredit the idea.

By the way, I ought to mention that the thought that it was Fr Schmemann's influence which brought evening Presanctifieds about is not mine. It is attested by priests on two clergy lists - one with a membership of all canonical clergy in the States and the other one devoted primarily to Russian Church Abroad clergy. I myself do not have enough knowledge of Fr Schmemann's influence in the States to make such a definitive assesment.

But I would also recommend that one not just take one side of this debate as gospel truth without first reading a defense from the other side.

I believe that someone did make a response to Pomazansky's critique. I imagine that members of the OCA could point us in its direction.

I'd rather not, since it seems to me you're merely attaching the move toward evening Presanctified Liturgies to Fr. Schmemann in an attempt to discredit the idea.

I assure you that you have entirely misunderstood my intention. You recommended that people should read more positive critiques of Schmemann than Pomazansky (which I supplied specifically in answer Alveus' question) and I simply, in fairness and balance, brought it to the attention of those reading this thread that I believe such a response to Pomazansky exists.

Actually, this paragraph focuses on something I really don't care about. I'm hearkening back to the post where you first mention Fr. Schmemann: Reply #9.

I'd rather not, since it seems to me you're merely attaching the move toward evening Presanctified Liturgies to Fr. Schmemann in an attempt to discredit the idea.

By the way, I ought to mention that the thought that it was Fr Schmemann's influence which brought evening Presanctifieds about is not mine. It is attested by priests on two clergy lists - one with a membership of all canonical clergy in the States and the other one devoted primarily to Russian Church Abroad clergy. I myself do not have enough knowledge of Fr Schmemann's influence in the States to make such a definitive assesment.

I really don't care about what those other clergy said. YOU are the one who introduced their thoughts to this thread. Therefore, I'm talking to YOU, not them.

But I would also recommend that one not just take one side of this debate as gospel truth without first reading a defense from the other side.

I believe that someone did make a response to Pomazansky's critique. I imagine that members of the OCA could point us in its direction.

I'd rather not, since it seems to me you're merely attaching the move toward evening Presanctified Liturgies to Fr. Schmemann in an attempt to discredit the idea.

I assure you that you have entirely misunderstood my intention. You recommended that people should read more positive critiques of Schmemann than Pomazansky (which I supplied specifically in answer Alveus' question) and I simply, in fairness and balance, brought it to the attention of those reading this thread that I believe such a response to Pomazansky exists.

Actually, this paragraph focuses on something I really don't care about. I'm hearkening back to the post where you first mention Fr. Schmemann: Reply #9.

Could you be more specific, please.

However it may be better if you and I avoid discussion about Fr Schmemann. I see that you wrote to me, "I'd rather discuss the move on its own liturgical merits, just as LBK tried to do, without making reference to Fr. Schmemann." I am happy to oblige you and observe this reticence in discussion with you if you prefer.

I'd rather not, since it seems to me you're merely attaching the move toward evening Presanctified Liturgies to Fr. Schmemann in an attempt to discredit the idea.

By the way, I ought to mention that the thought that it was Fr Schmemann's influence which brought evening Presanctifieds about is not mine. It is attested by priests on two clergy lists - one with a membership of all canonical clergy in the States and the other one devoted primarily to Russian Church Abroad clergy. I myself do not have enough knowledge of Fr Schmemann's influence in the States to make such a definitive assesment.

I really don't care about what those other clergy said. YOU are the one who introduced their thoughts to this thread. Therefore, I'm talking to YOU, not them.

The rules on both lists prevent relaying specific messages and clergy names.... so all I can do is make general observations.

May I enquire in what years the OCA introduced evening Presanctifieds? By a synodal decision? or by individual bishops? Is it now a uniform practice in all OCA dioceses? What information is available on that?

What amazes me is that Fr. Alexander had such an influence on the Greek church around the world.

Also if evening Pre-sanctified is what Fr. Alexander prescribes then why does his seminary celebrate it in the early afternoon? It would seem that neither the morning nor the evening is really the correct time but rather in the afternoon, at the prescribed time for vespers.

Serving the Pre-sanctified in the evening is a pastoral concern to allow the most people possible to participate because of the average work schedule.

What amazes me is that Fr. Alexander had such an influence on the Greek church around the world.

In the last 20 years, a lot of Greeks have read translated editions of his stuff, especially For the Life of the World. But I think ascribing (newer) liturgical practices in Greece to Schmemann is probably just post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The Kollyvades were advocating many such things for generations, as was ZOE. And well before Schmemann there was similar stuff being written in French and German by the Roman Catholic scholars, all of it being read independently by the Greek theologians of the early to mid 20th century (incidentally, that's where Schmemann got a lot of his ideas, anyway). And, then, there were the much more popular figures of Fondoulis and Zizioulas, both of whom literally taught generations of Greek priests.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Dear Father Ambrose--it may be misleading to ordinary folks to refer to a technical work on theology by Father Alexander of blessed memory. I would have cited For the Life of the World instead as his much more influential and widely known work. BTW, they were both Russian theologians, no?

Alveus--Father Alexander is indeed controversial. His influence is considerable on the many priests trained at Saint Vladimir's (OCA and Antiochian). He is credited by many for the liturgical renaissance in North America, particularly in the areas of frequent communion, understanding of confession as the Mystery of Reconciliation, insistence on participation of laity in the worship of the Church, etc. On the other hand, he has rubbed traditionalists the wrong way--as shown in the critique by Father Pomazamsky--by insisting that theologians cannot simply accept what is without any other yardstick other than a "this is what was passed on to us, therefore it is Holy Tradition, therefore it was guided and shaped by the Holy Spirit" type of circular argument.

In any case, to me Father Alexander's life and works are exemplary.ne can check him out further at the following sources.

- Books by Father Alexander are widely available from amny sources. They include: * Great Lent: Journey to Pascha (1969) * For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy (1970) * Liturgy and Life: Christian Development Through Liturgical Experience (1974) * Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism (1974) * Introduction to Liturgical Theology (1975) * The Historical Road of Eastern Othodoxy (1977) * Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought (1977) * Church, World, Mission: Reflections on Orthodoxy in the West (1979) * The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom (1988) * Celebration of Faith: I Believe... (1991) * Celebration of Faith: The Church Year (1994) * Celebration of Faith: The Virgin Mary (1995) * The Journals of Father Alexander Schmemann 1973-1983 (2000)

NOTE: Of those books that I have read, I highly recommend those that I highlighted in bold.

Went looking for some of Schmemann's stuff on the Presanctified, and found something he published in St Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly in 1957. It's actually a review of THE LITURGY OF THE PRESANCTIFIED, by D. N. Moraitis, Thessalonica, 1955, 126 pp. (in Greek) (another example of how scholarship had already been uncovering the ancient sources well before Schmemann). Anyway, this paragraph by Schmemann stood out:

The second problem related to the Liturgy of the Presanctified is usually considered as a secondary matter of "rubrics" and therefore completely neglected. It is the vesperal character of this service, made even more evident in the book of Professor Moraitis. The rubrics prescribe to celebrate the Liturgy of the Presanctified after Vespers. The peculiar way of combining this rubric with the largely spread conviction that any communion service is by necessity a morning service consists in serving vespers—when it is followed by the Presanctified—in the morning! Yet a "theological" study of rubrics shows very clearly that the question of the time of any given service —of its "kairos"—is not something unimportant. I have dealt with this question in my article "Fast and Liturgy" (cf. above) and cannot repeat all its argumentation here. Let me just simply state that the vesperal character of the Presanctified Liturgy has precisely a spiritual meaning. The Church expects us on these days of strict fasting to live our daily life in expectation of and in waiting for the communion, to make life itself with all its problems, worries and occupations a fast—i.e., a preparation for the Bridegroom, filling it with the light of—His Coming. Thus the fast is given its true meaning and the "daily life" its Christian depth, sanction and responsibility. One can but hope that these "rubrics" will be restored someday, restoring to us their full spiritual value.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 11:17:25 AM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Certainly the liturgical resurgence and the area of frequent communion, understanding of the confession as the Mystery of Reconciliation and increased participation by the laity in the worship were not limited to those priests trained at St. Vladimir's. During the same period the OCA witnessed these changes they also had a great positive influence on the spiritual life of ACROD and others as the clergy were influenced by the teachings of Fr. Alexander.

I can recall elderly Greeks telling me many years ago that, in their home villages, the Presanctified Liturgy was an evening service, yet in the larger cities and towns, to their discomfort, it had been shifted to the morning. I doubt it that these village priests or parishioners had heard of Fr Alexander Schmemann.

How did these elderly Greeks cope with the discomfort of morning Liturgies for the 316 other days of the year, outside the period of the Great Fast?

Non-sequitur. Their comment was that doing the Presanctified Liturgy in the morning made them uncomfortable, and it seems a bit disingenuous to me, Father, to make a flippant comment about other Liturgies being in the morning in the context of an expressed concern about moving one particular (and it is quite particular) Liturgy (that is specifically attached to an evening service) to the morning.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

Went looking for some of Schmemann's stuff on the Presanctified, and found something he published in St Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly in 1957. It's actually a review of THE LITURGY OF THE PRESANCTIFIED, by D. N. Moraitis, Thessalonica, 1955, 126 pp. (in Greek) (another example of how scholarship had already been uncovering the ancient sources well before Schmemann). Anyway, this paragraph by Schmemann stood out:

The second problem related to the Liturgy of the Presanctified is usually considered as a secondary matter of "rubrics" and therefore completely neglected. It is the vesperal character of this service, made even more evident in the book of Professor Moraitis. The rubrics prescribe to celebrate the Liturgy of the Presanctified after Vespers. The peculiar way of combining this rubric with the largely spread conviction that any communion service is by necessity a morning service consists in serving vespers—when it is followed by the Presanctified—in the morning! Yet a "theological" study of rubrics shows very clearly that the question of the time of any given service —of its "kairos"—is not something unimportant. I have dealt with this question in my article "Fast and Liturgy" (cf. above) and cannot repeat all its argumentation here. Let me just simply state that the vesperal character of the Presanctified Liturgy has precisely a spiritual meaning. The Church expects us on these days of strict fasting to live our daily life in expectation of and in waiting for the communion, to make life itself with all its problems, worries and occupations a fast—i.e., a preparation for the Bridegroom, filling it with the light of—His Coming. Thus the fast is given its true meaning and the "daily life" its Christian depth, sanction and responsibility. One can but hope that these "rubrics" will be restored someday, restoring to us their full spiritual value.

This is actually quite close to what I was thinking (in my much less academic way) since I last posted on this thread. Are we to merely accept an arbitrary decision to read an evening service in the morning because that's the tradition we've inherited from our forebears, even if such an arbitrary decision is inconsistent with the spirit and ethos of the service itself? (I guess that would also express well a concern I have with something arimethea posted earlier on this thread about the practice of serving Vespers in the early afternoon rather than in the evening.) Or should we rather look to the spirit and ethos of the Vespers service as this is expressed in its hymnography and let this define how and when we read the service?

For instance, the Lamplighting Hymn, the hymn par excellence of Vespers and one of the oldest hymns still sung in the Church today, with some historians dating it back to as early as the 2nd century:

O Gladsome Light of the holy glory of the immortal Father, heavenly, holy, blessed: Jesus Christ!Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening,We praise God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.For right it is at all times to worship You with voices of praise,O Son of God and Giver of Life:Therefore all the world glorifies You.(emphasis mine)

If this, the hymn that defines Vespers, assumes that those who sing it, sing it in the evening around sunset, don't we do the hymn a great injustice by moving it and the service around it to the morning, after sunrise, when its reference to evening and the setting of the sun makes no sense? I think also that the ancient dating of this hymn is ample evidence to show that the earliest liturgical practice was to read Vespers in the evening.

(I guess that would also express well a concern I have with something arimethea posted earlier on this thread about the practice of serving Vespers in the early afternoon rather than in the evening.) Or should we rather look to the spirit and ethos of the Vespers service as this is expressed in its hymnography and let this define how and when we read the service?

For instance, the Lamplighting Hymn, the hymn par excellence of Vespers and one of the oldest hymns still sung in the Church today, with some historians dating it back to as early as the 2nd century:

O Gladsome Light of the holy glory of the immortal Father, heavenly, holy, blessed: Jesus Christ!Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening,We praise God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.For right it is at all times to worship You with voices of praise,O Son of God and Giver of Life:Therefore all the world glorifies You.(emphasis mine)

If this, the hymn that defines Vespers, assumes that those who sing it, sing it in the evening around sunset, don't we do the hymn a great injustice by moving it and the service around it to the morning, after sunrise, when its reference to evening and the setting of the sun makes no sense? I think also that the ancient dating of this hymn is ample evidence to show that the earliest liturgical practice was to read Vespers in the evening.

Early afternoon, for most of lent, is when the setting of the sun does occur. To serve the liturgy at 7pm means the sun might have set 3 or 4 hours earlier then when the hymn Gladsome Light is actually sung. Here we are a week before Pascha and the sun is setting and has been setting for a good 2 hours now and it is only 4:30pm. I will go into Vespers at 5pm and when I come out it will be dusk.

(I guess that would also express well a concern I have with something arimethea posted earlier on this thread about the practice of serving Vespers in the early afternoon rather than in the evening.) Or should we rather look to the spirit and ethos of the Vespers service as this is expressed in its hymnography and let this define how and when we read the service?

For instance, the Lamplighting Hymn, the hymn par excellence of Vespers and one of the oldest hymns still sung in the Church today, with some historians dating it back to as early as the 2nd century:

O Gladsome Light of the holy glory of the immortal Father, heavenly, holy, blessed: Jesus Christ!Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening,We praise God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.For right it is at all times to worship You with voices of praise,O Son of God and Giver of Life:Therefore all the world glorifies You.(emphasis mine)

If this, the hymn that defines Vespers, assumes that those who sing it, sing it in the evening around sunset, don't we do the hymn a great injustice by moving it and the service around it to the morning, after sunrise, when its reference to evening and the setting of the sun makes no sense? I think also that the ancient dating of this hymn is ample evidence to show that the earliest liturgical practice was to read Vespers in the evening.

Early afternoon, for most of lent, is when the setting of the sun does occur. To serve the liturgy at 7pm means the sun might have set 3 or 4 hours earlier then when the hymn Gladsome Light is actually sung. Here we are a week before Pascha and the sun is setting and has been setting for a good 2 hours now and it is only 4:30pm. I will go into Vespers at 5pm and when I come out it will be dusk.

Early afternoon, for most of lent, is when the setting of the sun does occur. To serve the liturgy at 7pm means the sun might have set 3 or 4 hours earlier then when the hymn Gladsome Light is actually sung. Here we are a week before Pascha and the sun is setting and has been setting for a good 2 hours now and it is only 4:30pm. I will go into Vespers at 5pm and when I come out it will be dusk.

The sun is still out for us at this moment, but your concern is one reason why we serve Presanctified Liturgy at 5:45 instead of 7 or 7:30.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 05:22:58 PM by Fr. George »

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

I can recall elderly Greeks telling me many years ago that, in their home villages, the Presanctified Liturgy was an evening service, yet in the larger cities and towns, to their discomfort, it had been shifted to the morning. I doubt it that these village priests or parishioners had heard of Fr Alexander Schmemann.

How did these elderly Greeks cope with the discomfort of morning Liturgies for the 316 other days of the year, outside the period of the Great Fast?

Non-sequitur. Their comment was that doing the Presanctified Liturgy in the morning made them uncomfortable, and it seems a bit disingenuous to me, Father, to make a flippant comment about other Liturgies being in the morning in the context of an expressed concern about moving one particular (and it is quite particular) Liturgy (that is specifically attached to an evening service) to the morning.

Then let us be seriously liturgical. On every morning of weekdays during the Great Fast, Vespers is served in the morning. It is served in the morning whether or not the Presanctified is served with it.

(I guess that would also express well a concern I have with something arimethea posted earlier on this thread about the practice of serving Vespers in the early afternoon rather than in the evening.) Or should we rather look to the spirit and ethos of the Vespers service as this is expressed in its hymnography and let this define how and when we read the service?

For instance, the Lamplighting Hymn, the hymn par excellence of Vespers and one of the oldest hymns still sung in the Church today, with some historians dating it back to as early as the 2nd century:

O Gladsome Light of the holy glory of the immortal Father, heavenly, holy, blessed: Jesus Christ!Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening,We praise God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.For right it is at all times to worship You with voices of praise,O Son of God and Giver of Life:Therefore all the world glorifies You.(emphasis mine)

If this, the hymn that defines Vespers, assumes that those who sing it, sing it in the evening around sunset, don't we do the hymn a great injustice by moving it and the service around it to the morning, after sunrise, when its reference to evening and the setting of the sun makes no sense? I think also that the ancient dating of this hymn is ample evidence to show that the earliest liturgical practice was to read Vespers in the evening.

Early afternoon, for most of lent, is when the setting of the sun does occur. To serve the liturgy at 7pm means the sun might have set 3 or 4 hours earlier then when the hymn Gladsome Light is actually sung. Here we are a week before Pascha and the sun is setting and has been setting for a good 2 hours now and it is only 4:30pm. I will go into Vespers at 5pm and when I come out it will be dusk.

Early afternoon, for most of lent, is when the setting of the sun does occur. To serve the liturgy at 7pm means the sun might have set 3 or 4 hours earlier then when the hymn Gladsome Light is actually sung. Here we are a week before Pascha and the sun is setting and has been setting for a good 2 hours now and it is only 4:30pm. I will go into Vespers at 5pm and when I come out it will be dusk.

I think I need to ask, what is your definition of "the setting of the sun"? I've always understood it to mean the time that the sun begins to dip out of sight below the horizon. I live just west of Niagara Falls - on February 1, sunset, according to an online almanac was exactly 5:30 p.m. (EST). I know that geographic location within our time zones, and of course daylight saving time can do odd things to the hour of sunrise and sunset, but I really don't understand what you mean when you say that the sun began setting at 2:30 p.m. Sunset here will occur at 7:36 p.m. (EDT) today. It will soon be 6 o'clock and not a hint of darkness, although the sun is lower in the sky than it was a few hours ago, of course!

Then let us be seriously liturgical. On every morning of weekdays during the Great Fast, Vespers is served in the morning. It is served in the morning whether or not the Presanctified is served with it.

Indeed - the Typikon of the Great Church actually prescribes that Vespers (or Vespers and Presanctified) be served immediately after the Hours/Beatitudes, which follow immediately after the Matins service, with no breaks in between (that's a lot of Church for one block of time, no?). The only service prescribed for the evening is the Great Compline (or Small Compline with Salutations on Fridays).

But then again, the Typikon is not consistent, because the Matins are then further moved to the evenings during Holy Week, and follows the Compline, and only the Hours are said before Vespers & Liturgy.

So how exactly is this related to the point you seemingly discarded: that the practice in areas of Greece was to do evening Presanctified Liturgies, in areas where Fr. Schmemman's literature likely did not get disseminated?

« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 06:00:55 PM by Fr. George »

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

Quote from: Irish Hermit on Today at 10:23:41Then let us be seriously liturgical. On every morning of weekdays during the Great Fast, Vespers is served in the morning. It is served in the morning whether or not the Presanctified is served with it.

Indeed - the Typikon of the Great Church actually prescribes that Vespers (or Vespers and Presanctified) be served immediately after the Hours/Beatitudes, which follow immediately after the Matins service, with no breaks in between (that's a lot of Church for one block of time, no?). The only service prescribed for the evening is the Great Compline (or Small Compline with Salutations on Fridays).

But then again, the Typikon is not consistent, because the Matins are then further moved to the evenings during Holy Week, and follows the Compline, and only the Hours are said before Vespers & Liturgy.

Much of the Typicon of the Greast Fast is gloriously inconsistent as to time. I think that Met Kallistos (Ware) addresses this in The Lenten Triodion and he rejoices in it as a sign of the unique character of the fasting period. He points out that although it can be chronologically upside down it statisfies the Church's needs and sustains popular piety.

Quote

So how exactly is this related to the point you seemingly discarded: that the practice in areas of Greece was to do evening Presanctified Liturgies, in areas where Fr. Schmemman's literature likely did not get disseminated?

Well, it would be useful to have substantiation that back in the early 1900s Greek village priests were doing Presanctifieds in the evenings. I have seen, somewhere, a Greek Typicon which lays down that a Presanctified may commence no later than 12 noon.

"The time of serving the liturgy by an ancient canon, is the third hour of the day (9:00 AM by our notation). However, the liturgy may be served earlier and later than this time, according to the circumstances, only not before the dawn or in the afternoon (Refer to pp. 676-678). Some days, on which a liturgy is excluded it is served either very early in the morning or is joined to Vespers with the service (in the latter case it begins at midday). Such is the case on the day of Holy Pascha, the days of the Holy Forty Day Fast for the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, the days of the eve of the Nativity of Christ (the ringing of the bell for Vespers is ordered by the Ustav [Typikon] "at the 7th hour of the day", i.e. 1:00 p.m.) and Theophany ("at the hour of Vespers"), the day of Great Saturday and Pentecost."

I am not disputing at all that over the last 2 to 3 decades the Churches in the States have moved towards both evening Presanctifieds and evening Liturgy. As also in Australia where, for example, the Antiochian cathedral has a vesperal Liturgy on Friday nights, Saturday nights and Sunday nights. (I just checked this with the Antiochian priest.)

On the other hand, we see that in Russia the recent celebration of a Presanctified in the evening is a novelty worthy of note.

I am not disputing at all that over the last 2 to 3 decades the Churches in the States have moved towards both evening Presanctifieds and evening Liturgy. As also in Australia where, for example, the Antiochian cathedral has a vesperal Liturgy on Friday nights, Saturday nights and Sunday nights. (I just checked this with the Antiochian priest.)

On the other hand, we see that in Russia the recent celebration of a Presanctified in the evening is a novelty worthy of note.

Oh, I totally understand your point. I was just answering (or trying to) a question regarding Old Ritualist practices. I wonder what the the practice is in Russia, both among the full blown Old Believers (the priested ones, at least) and those who are in communion with the Patriarchate.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Without getting to the historical aspects of the Presanctified (of which I have not studied), I can see another line of thinking regarding the service. I was taught that the "Divine Liturgy" must be served before noon. This has to do with the sacrificial nature of the service (which is discussed in numerous books and writings familiar to most of the participants of this discussion). Given that the Pre-sanctified Service is just that - using a host that has reserved from a Divine Liturgy - make it somewhat independent of the time frame assigned to the Liturgy? There is no sacrifice or descending of the Holy Spirit in the Pre-sanctified, since that has already taken place in the Liturgy and the Offering is already the Body and Blood of Christ. Would this not move it out of the time-frame of the Liturgy and into a time after the noon hour?

Just asking.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I found a couple of interesting things in my readings this morning. One, in the footnotes to the Rudder, the author STRONGLY asserts that the Pre-Sanctified should be celebrated in the evening and even condemns the Russians for not doing so. Second, I found a paper written in 1975 by Bishop Basil Krivoshein,Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium where he discusses the differences between Russian and Greek liturgical practice. In this paper he says:

"It would seem that the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts would have one and the same meaning both for the Greeks and Russians. The people like that service and many do attend it, especially if it is celebrated in the evening, as it should be, although this "daring novelty" still meets up with strong objections and is not widely practiced, except among the Orthodox in the West. But even if there are no observable differences in the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, which could impact upon the spiritual experience of the people, still there are some serious theological differences, although not officially formulated, which underline the actions and words of the celebrants behind the iconostas."

It seems that in this writing, His Grace Basil at once recognizes the Russian practice of celebrating the Pre-sanctified during the day, as well as the Russian view that to do otherwise is a "daring novelty", while at the same time inserting his belief that the evening practice of the Greeks is more correct.

In the same work, he goes on to explain that the Pre-sanctified service is the last service of the current day, unlike the Vespers which is the first service of the next day (perhaps explaining the Old Rite Church's celebration at 5:00PM, when it is still quite light outside during this time of the year). He further explains that this is sensible since one can participate in the Friday Pre-sanctified, and yet still participate in a Saturday Liturgy since one has communed on Friday and Saturday rather than having two communions on Saturday, which would be the case if the Pre-sanctified was a true vespers.

The complete paper is published on the Web, as is (I believe) a version of the Rudder, so this should satisfy the normal requests for sources.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Went looking for some of Schmemann's stuff on the Presanctified, and found something he published in St Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly in 1957. It's actually a review of THE LITURGY OF THE PRESANCTIFIED, by D. N. Moraitis, Thessalonica, 1955, 126 pp. (in Greek) (another example of how scholarship had already been uncovering the ancient sources well before Schmemann). Anyway, this paragraph by Schmemann stood out:

The second problem related to the Liturgy of the Presanctified is usually considered as a secondary matter of "rubrics" and therefore completely neglected. It is the vesperal character of this service, made even more evident in the book of Professor Moraitis. The rubrics prescribe to celebrate the Liturgy of the Presanctified after Vespers. The peculiar way of combining this rubric with the largely spread conviction that any communion service is by necessity a morning service consists in serving vespers—when it is followed by the Presanctified—in the morning! Yet a "theological" study of rubrics shows very clearly that the question of the time of any given service —of its "kairos"—is not something unimportant. I have dealt with this question in my article "Fast and Liturgy" (cf. above) and cannot repeat all its argumentation here. Let me just simply state that the vesperal character of the Presanctified Liturgy has precisely a spiritual meaning. The Church expects us on these days of strict fasting to live our daily life in expectation of and in waiting for the communion, to make life itself with all its problems, worries and occupations a fast—i.e., a preparation for the Bridegroom, filling it with the light of—His Coming. Thus the fast is given its true meaning and the "daily life" its Christian depth, sanction and responsibility. One can but hope that these "rubrics" will be restored someday, restoring to us their full spiritual value.

"It is obvious however, that in uniting the Liturgy with Vespers, the authors of the Typikon intended more than a purely formal connection between the two services. They meant a deliberate transfer of the Liturgy to the evening, a conscious change in the usual order of services. Again it is obvious that in not fulfilling the rule, or in fulfilling it only as a formality (i.e., in transferring Vespers to the morning) we commit a twofold infraction of the liturgical "typos"; we serve an evening service in the morning which besides being a "nominalization" of prayer, is a contradiction to the common sense, and moreover, we completely ignore the reasons which promoted the Church to order the celebration of the Liturgy on certain days in the evening and not in the morning. But perhaps if we investigate these reasons, we will see in them something more meaningful than a mere detail of rubrics, something forgotten yet essential for the comprehension of our liturgical tradition."

He finds the answer in the Typicon, from which he derives the following principle: "Expectation must precede fulfillment. From this point of view, the eucharistic fast is not a simple abstinence before communion, it is made primarily of expectation and spiritual preparation. It is fasting in the scriptural sense indicated above, the waiting for the sacramental Parousia.

In the early Church, the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist was preceded by a night vigil which was precisely (and theoretically still is in the Eastern Church) the service of preparation and getting ready, a vigil in the full Christian meaning of the word. And this is why the Eucharist on Sunday and on great holidays is prescribed for the early hours of the day: it is the fulfillment, the end of the vigil, of the service of fasting and preparation. But on a lesser feast, which has no vigil, the celebration of the Eucharist takes place at the end of morning, for in this case, the morning hours of fasting constitute the necessary period of preparation. Thus the whole liturgical life of the Church which, in turn determine the life of each member of the Church, is built on this rhythm of expectation and fulfillment, preparation and "presence." And the rules that govern this rhythm cease to be archaic and incomprehensible but become signs of a path leading us to the very heart of life in the Church."

So, how does all of this relate to the Presanctified Liturgy? Father Schmemann concludes:

"We must understand that the liturgy of the Church is profoundly realistic, that Vespers is in a real rapport with this particular evening: it is this evening that we as Christians must spend "perfectly, in holiness, in peace and without sin," it is this evening that must offer and dedicate to God, and this evening is already illumined for us with the light of another Evening, of another End, the one which we expect and at the same time fear, and which is approaching in our human time. In the liturgy, we discover how seriously indeed the Church considers time, food, rest and all the actions, all the details of our life. In the world in which God became man, nothing can even be withdrawn from Him.Expectation, encounter, possession: in this rhythm, the Church dives and by it, she measures time. But there are days when this expectation reaches its extreme "concentration"; the days of the vesperal Eucharist. The Church has conscientiously and totally dedicated them to expectation and preparation, to fasting in its full sense. They are spent in the same everyday activities, which fill any other day. And yet how infinitely meaningful, how deeply "important" and responsible, are each word that we pronounce in the light of this expectation, each action that we perform! Yes, it is on such days that we are given to realize what is, what ought to be Christian life, we live then as if they were illumined by what is to come! The Eve of Nativity, the supernatural quiet of Holy Saturday, the days of Lent when we prepare ourselves for the presanctified service, how all this should "build up" a Christian soul, lead it to the comprehension of the Mystery of Salvation, to the transformation of life . . . And when finally comes the evening, when all this fasting preparation and expectation are fulfilled in the Eucharist, our life is really taken into this Eucharist, is "related" to the joy and the fullness of the Kingdom."

What amazes me is that Fr. Alexander had such an influence on the Greek church around the world.

In the last 20 years, a lot of Greeks have read translated editions of his stuff, especially For the Life of the World. But I think ascribing (newer) liturgical practices in Greece to Schmemann is probably just post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The Kollyvades were advocating many such things for generations, as was ZOE. And well before Schmemann there was similar stuff being written in French and German by the Roman Catholic scholars, all of it being read independently by the Greek theologians of the early to mid 20th century (incidentally, that's where Schmemann got a lot of his ideas, anyway). And, then, there were the much more popular figures of Fondoulis and Zizioulas, both of whom literally taught generations of Greek priests.

In my tunnel vision (exposure to books and articles only in English), I had not realized the great work done by the Greek theologians whom you mention. Thank you for the info. And, I must say that regardless of the source, it is a good thing that Greek, Russian, Antiochian (and American, if I may timidly interject) approaches are converging.